[game_edu] Ad Hoc committee

[Jim Bosco]

There are many existing models supporting Ian's comments.

For example, the wine industry in France is one of the most highly regulated
in the world.
This has allowed them to consistently produce quality products for
centuries.

However, rules, guidelines, and restrictions are the fundamental building
blocks that wall off creativity and imagination.

It is this barrier to innovation that has allowed American wine makers to
quickly close the gap and in many cases surpass their European counterparts.

Sorry about the wine metaphor but it is Friday and I'm certain it is 5
o'clock somewhere.

The point is, I would exercise extreme caution before introducing any type
of accreditation process that might limit the diversity and therefore
potential of our product.

~Pub Ed.
www.shifted21.blogspot.com

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ian Schreiber <ai864 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> Wow. If I ever need to generate a large amount of traffic on this list in

> a short time, now I know what to post about!

>

> Some comments:

>

> >As I said at the town hall meeting, "regulatory capture". Let us imagine

> school X that

> >invests as little as possible in its educational programs and seeks to

> turn a big profit.

> >School X discovers that the IGDA stamp of approval program exists and can

> be used as a

> >marketing tool. Suddenly it is in the interests of School X to meet the

> "letter of the law"

> >requirements of the stamp of approval, and furthermore to become heavily

> involved in the

> >formulation of those requirements to make sure that its own curriculum

> passes muster. It

> >will be far more cost effective for School X to lobby / infiltrate the

> regulatory body than to

> >actually improve its curriculum. This is the wrong incentive structure to

> create.

>

> True, but it's superior to a complete lack of structure where any school

> can add a course in "game development" (whatever that is) and say they have

> a "games program". Schools that only care about marketing and not education

> are going to be that way whether there's accreditation or not; at least if

> there is, it would give these places incentive to reach for a bare minimum.

>

> >Game development means different things to different people. We are so

> early in the

> >process of teaching this discipline that it is very pre-mature to say

> that we know how to do

> >it right. Just because people get jobs in the industry does not mean that

> we are doing it

> >right. 50 years from now, when we see who has created the real

> innovations in the field,

> >then we'll know if we were doing it right.

>

> I don't think anyone said that the purpose of accreditation is to make

> sure that schools can produce graduates who can get entry-level jobs in

> industry. As others have pointed out, some students may wish to pursue game

> studies or stay in academia, or they may wish to be game journalists or

> critics. I think it's a bit premature to assume that any IGDA stamp of

> approval would be so narrow as to only allow programs where students make

> games.

>

> The point is that schools should be clear about the educational products

> they're peddling. If a certain course of study will not make its graduates

> employable in the game industry, that may be perfectly acceptable... but the

> students should be aware of this before matriculating!

>

> >Teams and iterative design are over-rated :P Yes, I'm being a tad devil's

> advocate here, but

> >as a Certified Scrum Master, I think I can weigh in a bit here.

>

> I suspect the reason that teamwork was brought up was that it was a common

> theme at GDC. Over and over again, the one big message I was hearing (at the

> Education Summit, in academic group gatherings and roundtables, and just

> with conversations with devs) was that the one thing schools aren't doing

> enough of is preparing students to work in interdisciplinary teams.

>

> Again, you're right that these skills are totally unnecessary for a

> student wishing to study games-as-culture, or game criticism, or indie

> development. But for a school that bills its program as a way to get a job

> at a AAA development company, it had darn well better be teaching teamwork.

>

> >I am also a bit sick of the wholly unfounded image of lecturers as

> moustache twiddling

> >villains, laughing at the duped games students, as they wheel cash-filled

> barrows to the

> >bank.

>

> As an educator myself, I don't see where this is wholly unfounded. Not in

> MY school or YOURS, but in the schools that don't even bother to send people

> to GDC, or establish a presence on this mailing list. There are schools that

> are rather mercenary out there, in terms of doing anything to boost

> enrollment, whether they have the resources and expertise or not. When I can

> go a whole year without seeing some recruitment ad that reminds me of

> "tightening those graphics" then I'll be a bit more charitable :)

>

> >As evidenced by our EDU summit this year we are comprised of numerous and

> diverse

> >programs that vary from the wildly creative to the seriously

> professional.  I think this

> >diversity is good for students, the industry and the art, and as with all

> legitimate academic

> >disciplines time will tell which paths are successful.  I find it hard to

> believe that any

> >criteria which is inclusive enough to approve of this diversity will be

> of any real value (from

> >transgender hopscotch to linear algebra?)

>

> Who said that all programs must be judged on a single set of criteria?

> Personally, I'd assume that a game art/animation program would be accredited

> differently from a game studies program or a game design program.

>

> >I honestly don't believe that accreditation is any guarantee of

> legitimacy.  We should be

> >guiding students and parents, but the only way that they can judge the

> quality of a

> >program is through researching the choices, not by looking for a stamp of

> approval that's

> >based on comfortably achieved criteria.

>

> And the only way parents can judge the age-appropriateness of a game for

> their child is by thoroughly researching it. Yet, we have the ESRB, and it

> is largely necessary as a way to communicate complex information to parents

> who may not know enough about games to make an informed decision without

> help. I think students choosing a school are in much the same situation:

> every school is saying what a great game program they have, and there's no

> watchdog group saying "hey, be careful".

>

> And there should be. Because otherwise, more and more students will choose

> programs that are entirely wrong for them, because they don't know how to

> evaluate them. (You can say "they should find the IGDA". Sure. But how are

> they supposed to know that? And how are they supposed to tell the difference

> in quality of information from all of the sources out there?)

>

> Personally, I'd love it if someone would just make sure, at a very basic

> level, that schools are providing what they say they are. If a school says

> they have a "game development" major but it's actually game studies focused,

> and their graduates are totally employable as scholars but not as

> developers, that's something that the school should correct. Isn't it?

>

> - Ian

>

> ------------------------------

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20080229/fad09495/attachment.htm>